Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJG4D-0005zY-Gu for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:56:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJG4B-0005Ko-Nd for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:56:12 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q933ss8I024278; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:54:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: Nick Hofstede cc: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: suboptimal query plan In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Nick Hofstede message dated "Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:46:38 -0000" Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:54:53 -0400 Message-ID: <24277.1349236493@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Archive-Number: 201210/17 X-Sequence-Number: 47976 Nick Hofstede writes: > I'm struggling with a query that seems to use a suboptimal query plan. Try it in 9.2 - this is the same type of join ordering restriction complained of last week here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-09/msg00201.php regards, tom lane